If exposing the climate deniers makes me a scumbag so be it

A retired weatherman and a former political hack for Margaret Thatcher walk into a bar and the bartender tells them both that if they want a drink they have to stop pretending they’re experts in climate science.

Oh, and they should stop calling people (like me) a scumbag, it just makes them less attractive to the ladies at the bar than they already are.

Watts should know that I go ballistic at least 10 times a day about something or other (today it was my coffee cup lid leaking every time I took a sip). As for me being a scumbag… well I would say to that, grow up.

It must be getting frustrating for the likes of Watts and Monckton to be sliding back into obscurity now that the climategate scandal has been determined by no less than three different inquiries to be nothing more than manufactured hot air.

Watts and Monckton have both been breathless activists when it comes to using the stolen emails to fit their conspiracy theories around climate change and now that they have been proven incorrect they must be feeling a little bit hurt.

At least for Watts it looks like that has taken the form of name-calling.

The stench of sycophancy here is overwhelming, like the evidence and facts debunking anthropomorphic climate change: The climate changes all the time, before we got here while we have been here and if your zio-yiddish khazar paymasters get their way; after we are gone.

To “veritas6464”: Nothing like a little delusional wish-fulfillment to help reaffirm your prejudices.

“climate changes all the time” you say? No kidding, Sherlock. But the WAY it is changing now is not business as usual is it? Have a look at this recent RealClimate post:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/2000-years-of-sea-level/

Heres their sea-level reconstruction for the last 2000 years:
www.realclimate.org/images//Kemp_sealevel_20111.png

The tactics of Anthony Watts et. al. throughout have been to smear their critics, claim victimization, and to lie about the climate evidence.

Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem, the science is not science it is a fraudulent polemic. Oh, and yeah I’ll go to another BS climate-gate site, not. 31000+ American scientist (9000+ have PhDs), signed a statement denying climate change is due to anthropomorphic affectation - also, that reducing greenhouse gasses would effect the production of food crops: So, tell me again why I should believe Chicken Little as she scrambles around squealing “The sky is falling, the sky is falling”!

Genuine concern for the pollution of our seas,oceans,rivers,lakes and land is being swept under the rug because of uninformed sheeple like YOU!

The sea level issue is a direct result of Post-glacial rebound, Google that, duh!

Or perhaps you know all this and you’re just doing your job of shilling for your masters that built the Georgia Guidestones? veritas

You understand that this post is about Anthony Watts calling Kevin Grandia a scumbag? “Ad hominem” is an accusation of attacking a person instead of their argument. Read Anthony’s statement again with that in mind, and maybe also think about your juvenile comment title.

“31,000+ American scientist” - That knee-slapper has been around since 2008. It’s bull. The dunce-cap “Oregon Institute” rigged and misrepresented it. Read about it here: www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

“reducing greenhouse gasses would effect the production of food crops” - This is the “CO2 is essential for life” claim made by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2006. Perhaps you think those crazy greens want to BANCO2 ENTIRELY? This link gets at the political agenda behind the intentionally stupid claim: www.factcheck.org/article395.html

“Genuine concern for the pollution… being swept under the rug… sheeple…” - So climate change action and “pollution” action is an either/or proposition? I doubt it.

Your assertion that sea-level rise is merely due to isostatic rebound is just enthusiastic ignorance. I’m a geologist. (Does that count as an “appeal to authority”?) Perhaps you can explain to me how the changing rate of sea-level rise over the last hundred years can be linked to continental glaciation that ended many thousands of years ago.

You allusion to the “Georgia Guidestones” was a puzzler until I Googled them and discovered that they are the focus of a number of conflicting conspiracy theories. You really do need to get back on your meds.

You can keep muttering “climate-gate” if it provides some comfort though.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.